The claimants appealed against dismissal of their claim for damages under the 1998 Act. The house had been searched under warrant. They said that the constable obtaining the warrant had acted on information he knew or ought to have known was false. The officer had acted on the basis of information provided through Crimestoppers, but had mistakenly recorded the numbers of three cars parked at the defendant’s property.
Held: The appeal failed. It was not open to the appellate court to substitute its own assessment of the facts. The claimant misunderstood the duty falling on an officer: ‘It was not his responsibility to seek confirmation of every averment of fact made by the anonymous source to Crimestoppers. He was with the aid of that intelligence investigating whether a crime had been committed.’ The officer did have information on which he could properly act, even though it later appeared inaccurate.
Judges:
Carnwath, Elias, Pitchford LJJ
Citations:
[2010] EWCA Civ 1627
Links:
Statutes:
Human Rights Act 1998 7, Theft Act 1968 26(1), Protection of Constables Act 1750 6, European Convention on Human Rights 8, Police Act 1996 88(1)
Jurisdiction:
England and Wales
Citing:
Cited – Keegan v United Kingdom ECHR 18-Jul-2006
The claimant had been the subject of a raid by armed police on his home. The raid was a mistake. He complained that the English legal system, in rejecting his claim had not allowed him to assert that the police action had been disproportionate.
Lists of cited by and citing cases may be incomplete.
Human Rights, Police
Updated: 13 September 2022; Ref: scu.440326
